Global temperatures are heading downward, and fast

It’s no surprise to us that the “monster” El Niño of 2015/2016 created a very large global temperature spike, after all, that’s what the natural process that creates the phenomenon results in due to the Pacific ocean near the Equator not being able to dissipate heat to space as effectively as it usually does. NOAA says that “ENSO is one of the most important climate phenomena on Earth due to its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe. ”

But, as they say, “what goes up, must come down”. NOAA has this to say about the current state:

After dominating the tropical Pacific for more than a year, El Niño ended in May 2016. Near- or below-average temperatures existed in 3 out of 4 ENSO monitoring regions of the tropical Pacific. And for the first time in 2016, wind and air pressure patterns were consistent with neutral conditions. There’s a 75% chance that La Niña will develop by winter. NOAA’s next ENSO update will be released on July 14.

The latest forecasts show La Niña conditions developing this fall, and with it, global temperatures will come down:

And in fact, they already are. Here are some selected global temperature plots. First the lower troposphere from University of Alabama Huntsville, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy:

The big spike from El Niño is clearly evident, followed by the drop in global temperature. And as you can see, as of May, it has already lost about half of the peak value.

Looking at RSS (the other satellite data set from Carl Mears) I chose to use Nick Stokes temperature viewer. It also shows recent global temperature plummeting.

For the surface record, here is the NCEP 2 meter global temperature plotted along with the tropical region where El Niño resides, by Dr. Ryan Maue. It also is going down.

The NCEP plot has also lost about half it’s value since the peak of nearly 1°C, and is now at 0.55°C as of June 14th, 2016.

A 90 day averaged version of the NCEP 2 meter global temperature data shows a sharp dropoff.

When looking at the NCEP data by hemisphere, the southern hemisphere is already below the zero anomaly line:

The southern hemisphere has most of the water surface on Earth, so it is interesting that it has cooled faster than the northern hemisphere, which has most of the land and surface thermometers. This map below shows how the northern hemisphere has so many more thermometers.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Land and Ocean data plotted by Stokes viewer also shows a huge drop in temperature over a very short time:

Here are the remaining land and ocean datasets, NOAA GHCN2, HadCRUT, and NASA GISS. It is important to note that HadCRUT and NASA GISS are interpretd derivatives of the NOAA data.

What’s clear, is that no matter what dataset you look at, global temperatures are headed down, and fast. This may spoil activist plans for a planned celebration of of 2016 being yet another “hottest year ever”. Scientific American blazed a headline on May 18th that said: 99 Percent Chance 2016 Will Be the Hottest Year on Record.

Maybe, but what is equally 99% certain is that 2017 won’t be the “hottest year ever”.

ShrNfr,
Nature is an absolute democracy. All interactions in nature are by the mutual consent of all parties involved, be they elementary particles, life-forms or galactic superclusters.
Dictatorship is fundamentally unnatural for this very reason. A dictator can only be such because others consent to do as he/she tells them. Therefore, ultimately dictatorship is not only unnatural but is also unreal.

Regan Power, “mutual consent of all parties involved” implies that elementary particles can make choices, which implies intelligence. What evidence do you have that these particles have the ability to act in addition to be acted upon? I know that some warmists believe that CO2 molecules possess an evil intelligence that allows them to be the cause of almost everything bad that can happen on this planet. But most of us think that is laughable. What say we test this idea of yours that “nature is an absolute democracy”? We could drop you off a cliff, and you could explain to gravity on the way down that you do not consent to falling to your death and that your vote is to survive unharmed. Let’s see if democracy works in nature or if gravity is a very real dictator that refuses to listen to your vote.

Louis,Regan Power, “mutual consent of all parties involved” implies that elementary particles can make choices, which implies intelligence.
It does not imply these things to me. All beings can only behave according to their natures so there are no real choices for anyone to make: each one will act according to its real nature, regardless of whatever deliberation and choice-making may go on in its conscious mind. We act according to what we really are, not what we may think we are. “Consent” means “agreement”, not choice.What say we test this idea of yours that “nature is an absolute democracy”? We could drop you off a cliff, and you could explain to gravity on the way down that you do not consent to falling to your death and that your vote is to survive unharmed….
If you could drop me off a cliff I would already have consented, in my real being, to your doing it, even though I might try to explain to gravity on my way down that I do not consent to its pulling my body to the ground.

MarkWWhen exactly did the fox or the sparrow give it’s consent to winter, or to rain this afternoon?
There is no final answer to this question. Ultimately both the fox and the sparrow are only dream-creatures that exist in the minds of us humans who perceive them and winter and rain are similar human mental constructs too. The common reality that we think we inhabit is not separate from us or in any way external to us: it is constructed by us out of our common consent to imagine it and to believe in it. The so-called “real external world” is in fact not real and not external either. It is a virtual reality constructed by our minds and it is made of mindstuff, not matter and energy. So asking when the fox or the sparrow gave their consent to something is basically the same as asking when the make-believe characters in a dream or a play gave their consent to something. The question itself is ultimately meaningless.

Regan Power:
You’re claiming that predator-prey and other forms of nature relationships are ‘mutual consent’?
Perhaps you need to visit polar bear territory, or the grass savannah’s where roam lions, Central and South America jungles to tell jaguars about mutual consent, up close and personal.
Nature is all about individual monocracies with battles over border, territorial and food.
No consent whatsoever. you want me? Come and try to get me!

Reagan Power, it appears that you like to discuss things that really don’t lead to anything real, so …
You say “The so-called “real external world” is in fact not real and not external either. It is a virtual reality constructed by our minds and it is made of mindstuff, not matter and energy.”
So, if your mindstuff twists your reality into you being abused physically by a close friend, then you would be 100% of the responsible for the act. Of course your mindstuff could blame the friend after the fact and still hold the moral high ground, because your friend is just a part of you and your reality.
But the problem is that if a teeny tiny part of your awareness thinks otherwise, your self-loathing will grow & grow, and will then be projected onto others. You will create a loop of mindstuff.
(If you are going to be a Stoic go all in … being something close is not good for you)

ATheoK,You’re claiming that predator-prey and other forms of nature relationships are ‘mutual consent’?
Unconsciously, yes; consciously, no. I am saying that the rabbit consents at least unconsciously to becoming potential prey for the fox by consenting to be a rabbit in the first place. Being the fox’s potential prey comes with the territory when he is born and the rabbit has to accept this if he wants to live as a rabbit. But if he doesn’t want to live as a rabbit then he won’t object to the fox eating him, will he?Perhaps you need to visit polar bear territory, or the grass savannah’s where roam lions, Central and South America jungles to tell jaguars about mutual consent, up close and personal.
And perhaps you need to check that your brain is engaged before operating your keyboard. If I willfully present myself to polar bears, lion’s or jaguars “up close and personal”, knowing that it is in their nature to regard me as prey, I would be knowingly offering myself to them as prey and therefore consenting consciously, as well as unconsciously, to their treating me as prey, wouldn’t I?Nature is all about individual monocracies with battles over border, territorial and food.
No it isn’t. Nature is also about co-operation, symbiosis and much more besides. However, all that is off the point, surely. I am not saying that there are no monocracies in nature. I am saying that where monocracies exist they do so with the voluntary consent of their members. Rulers can rule only because the ruled consent to obey them. This principle works for insect communities, for example, just as it does for human society.

DonM,Reagan Power, it appears that you like to discuss things that really don’t lead to anything real, so …
Then I can only tell you that how things appear to you is not how they are in reality. For a start, my name is Regan, not Reagan. And secondly, I don’t particularly want to discuss anything. I just wanted to make the point that nature is not a dictatorship but is an absolute democracy and leave it at that. But I have just been replying to objections since making that point and whatever discussion has ensued was instigated by others, not me. Frankly, I find your comment that I “like to discuss things that really don’t lead to anything real” somewhat bizarre in view of the fact that all I have been discussing so far is the implicit nature of reality.You say “The so-called “real external world” is in fact not real and not external either. It is a virtual reality constructed by our minds and it is made of mindstuff, not matter and energy.”
So, if your mindstuff twists your reality into you being abused physically by a close friend, then you would be 100% of the responsible for the act…
No. I would only be 100% responsible for my experience of the act and my subsequent thoughts and emotions about it afterwards.

Regan,
The rabbit consents to be a potential snack by first consenting to be a rabbit in the first place…
So, I consent to abuse by going out into the world where abuse runs rampant.
Fox & Sparrow are dream constructs that exist only in our minds…
As such I may, without remorse or second thought, do what I may with Fox & Sparrow.
I say such things over and over again, and my mindstuff still does not accept it….
As such, I must be one of the constructs; and therefore it doesn’t matter what I do (or do not).

Apparently the rate of fall for RSS is the fastest for a 3 month period since measurements begun. If a strong la Niña develops during the summer, it will be difficult that 2016 is a temperature record year. All in all it looks like 2015 will be the year of Peak Warmth for quite some time.

Here’s the AG Lynch version…
“… the rate of [inconsistent sign convention] of [denier data nobody believes] is the [least slowest] for a 3 month period since [Koch brothers funded] measurements begun. If [temporary lack of warming] develops during the summer, [further record warmth is 97% likely after as soon as 2017]. [censored] 2015 [was] the [hottest evah].

@asybotClimate change ‘will make lightning strike more’ — from link
Holy stupidity Batman!
No, there is nothing to prevent the crooks pretending to be scientists, and their willing partners in the media, from just making stuff up to keep the alarmist money rolling in. The truth may win in the distant future, but it is beginning to look like I will not live to see it.
On the other hand, I have a paper here that proves unicorn farts will increase with climate change and that may cause woodland elves to have to migrate. I just don’t know which journal to send it to. The Journal of Irreproducible Results?
My paper is more accurate than anything “Dr.” Mann ever did.

Stephen, You are so boring. How can I and the world’s elites and powerful (OK, not I, just the others) make tons of money and convince the masses to turn their sovereignty and their power over to us if your notion is true?
Good grief, there are special places in hell for those such as yourself. The Left and Elites work daily to find those places and to send those such as yourself there.

I just made a reply to Pamela Gray that is along a similar line of reasoning.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
I was thinking of something that is related, earlier today. Isn’t any warming most likely a simple matter of having a greater level of positive ENSO region conditions versus negative ENSO regions over a 30 year cyclic pattern? That is what I see when viewing the MEI long term graph.
The positive ENSO conditions move masses of moist warmth air that are then carried to other parts of the globe. Any region which gets covered by the moving warm mass builds up heat during the day, as the blanket above limits the ability to shed the daily incoming solar energy. This is how heat builds up in the system. An example of what I am seeing would be the current extra warmth being experienced in a heat wave in the Southwest over the last week or two, and still ongoing. Although the current wind pattern is shifting slightly as compared to the last several weeks. Look at the surface wind patterns which are moving from warmer regions northward into the Southwest. Those surface winds are moist and warm, and a heat wave forms…https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-105.39,42.10,819/loc=-122.896,40.434

hmmm: “…that’s what the natural process that creates the phenomenon results in due to the Pacific ocean near the Equator not being able to dissipate heat to space as effectively as it usually does.”
The usual condition is neutral, which assumes a fairly close balance between recharge and discharge of heat sourced from the Sun. When heat is being dissipated effectively, we are in El Nino conditions. When heat is being stored instead of dissipated we are in La Nina conditions. So I don’t quite follow the above statement.

Nor did I, but for different reasons.
The tropics almost always receive more energy than they lose directly into space. The heat from the tropics is lost into space after it transports it to higher latitudes.http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html
I think El Nino is more accurately described as the decrease in cooling of the atmosphere from deep ocean water, than it is heat dissipating from the ocean itself. The dissipation of the heat is the effect, not the cause, and happens after the heat builds up in the months leading up to El Nino due to slight decrease in global cloud cover.http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/

This touches on a key question IMO. Still trying to clarify it in my own head. I am now wondering if indeed cloud cover has a major role to play. We have possible variations in solar input, IR output and insulation. A spike in a very confined area on the equator is only just that. We have to understand why the spike exists in varying degrees around much of the globe. Tricky stuff
Whatever, ENSO is turning out to be possibly the most important tool in our understanding of thermodynamics on the globe

Aww, come on guys. This is basic stuff. The El Nino equatorial waters warm & cool based on the strength/direction of the trade winds (a reflection of the SOI) & their effect on the surface currents. SW energy from the Sun is a basic constant.
Remember, in the neutral state, the westward blowing trade winds ‘push’ the surface water westward away from the west coasts of Central/South America toward Australia/Indonesia. Cool water ‘upwelling’ is in the east & it warms as it travels west.
In La Nina, the trade winds are enhanced, the surface currents flowing west strengthen so the upwelling strengthens and the cool waters are cooler & more wide spread. SW energy from the sun is basically constant so the cooling of the water is overwhelming the warming from the sun.
In El Nino, the opposite occurs – the trade winds weaken or even reverse, the surface currents flowing west weaken or stop which causes the upwelling to weaken or stop. SW energy from the sun is basically constant but now the SW energy can more effectively warm the water because the cool upwelling has been shut down/reduced.
Now (this is important), the convection associated w/ El Nino is *not* driven buy surface water temperatures. This can be proved because the west warm pool waters around Australia/Indonesia do not cool or warm like the east Pacific waters do yet, during El Nino, convection is suppressed and during La Nina, convection is enhanced…why? Because it is the upper atmosphere that is the main driver of convection in the tropics. When there is mass divergence (convergence) aloft, convection is enhanced (suppressed) and these areas of convergence/divergence shift around during El Ninos/La Ninas. Also, the Madden Julien Oscillation (MJO) as well as the Indian Ocean Dipole offer constructive/destructive interference to the broad convective process in the Indian & Pacific Ocean.

Understood. But that was not my query. What can you provide to the discussion regarding the phrase:
“It’s no surprise to us that the “monster” El Niño of 2015/2016 created a very large global temperature spike, after all, that’s what the natural process that creates the phenomenon results in due to the Pacific ocean near the Equator not being able to dissipate heat to space as effectively as it usually does.”
I don’t see that the Pacific ocean near the Equator dissipating heat to space (IE above the troposphere effectively at any time. Unless the author is referring to stratospheric thunderhead tops that pile up against the West under both neutral and La Nina conditions sending heat to said space. But I wonder about that. Does that “sending heat to space” compare favorably to when that pile of warm water is spread across the equatorial band? My thinking is that under El Nino conditions, oceanic heat is leaving most effectively, just not to “space” right away if one means to somewhere above the troposphere.
As to your comment, yes. El Nino evaporation releases heat, while a clear sky La Nina absorbs heat, and to my way of thinking, absorbs more heat than the thunderheads release.

I don’t see that the Pacific ocean near the Equator dissipating heat to space (IE above the troposphere effectively at any time.

The surface (land and water) radiates (looses) heat under a clear sky regardless of it’s location on the globe. Looking at any wxsat image will show that to be true. It is only more apparent toward the poles because incoming SW radiation is less allowing the radiation ‘balance’ to be toward cooling.

… stratospheric thunderhead tops that pile up against the West under both neutral and La Nina conditions sending heat to said space.

I’d really like to know where this line of thinking originated that says cold cloud tops radiate heat more efficiently than a clear sky. Cold has less heat to radiate than hot does by definition! Hot is at the surface. That is why the OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) graphics show *less* associated with deep convection and *more* with clear skies. One would think that would be obvious but… If this hypothesis is true, please provide some professional references to back it up (and discussions concerning the latent heat processes *internal* to the cloud don’t count).

I never once said anything about absorb/release heat. The global tropical oceans are constantly absorbing SW radiation during daylight hours.

What can you provide to the discussion regarding the phrase:
“… that’s what the natural process that creates the phenomenon results in due to the Pacific ocean near the Equator not being able to dissipate heat to space as effectively as it usually does.”

Again, the surface (land and water) radiates (looses) heat under a clear sky regardless of it’s location on the globe. Regretfully, Anthony in misinformed as to the processes involved.

JKrob, we may not be focused on the same part of the process of heat leaving Earth to space.
Evaporation to the air and radiation to space are two different places on this exit process. Evaporation from the ocean surface is increased when the top layer is warmer versus when it is cooler. Therefore I still contend that evaporation to the air from the ocean is increased, (thus release of heat as well because you can’t have one without the other), in the equatorial band under El Nino conditions than under La Nina conditions. That is not to say evaporation doesn’t happen at all under La Nina conditions, just less so.
Radiation of heat to space does indeed work better when the air column above is dry versus filled with water vapor. Radiated heat to space would indeed be increased under dry clear sky conditions, but for that to occur, evaporation must precede it. And since land does not store heat over long periods of time, the source of climate temperature trends if one is looking for such a source other than CO2 alone, would be in the oceans.
To narrow the discussion, the focus is on the oceans, and in particular the Pacific Equatorial Band. Your comment has not cleared up my confusion as to the statement in the post. The ball is in your court. I have never heard that the Pacific equatorial band is efficient at dissipating heat to space unless one is focused solely on strong La Nina thunderheads, or possibly the movement of those thundersheads, reduced in size, across the Pacific during El Nino. The Pacific is indeed efficient at evaporation. But efficient radiation to space likely occurs somewhere else.

Evaporation from the ocean surface is increased when the top layer is warmer versus when it is cooler.

No, evaporation is increased when the dewpoint depression (air temperature minus dewpoint temperature) is larger. If you have cool moist air flowing over warmer water, little if any evaporation takes place till the air itself is warmed & the dewpoint depression increases.
Dry air is drawn off Central/South America as part of the Walker Circulation and flows westward over the cool water of the East Pacific. The East Pacific water is relatively cool all the time (during El Nino, it is less cool & during La Nina it is more cool). As the air gains moisture due to evaporation (presuming constant temperature) evaporation lessens.
But as I said before, IMO, “…Pacific ocean near the Equator not being able to dissipate heat to space as effectively as it usually does.” has little to do with anything. The process of the Equatorial Pacific dissipating heat to space does not make-or-break an El Nino or La Nina. I see nowhere where the heat-to-space dissipation process is enhanced or restricted nor where it plays any significant roll in the ENSO process. Anthony Watts saying it is not good enough for me.
During this last El Nino, the vast majority of the enhanced convection was centered around 160-180 deg long. The vast area to the east where the majority of the sea water temperature increase was located was largely unaffected by persistent convection. It warmed for several months…now it is cooling.
As I said before in my first post, the water warmed because the trade winds weakened, the cool upwelling slowed so the constant SW energy from the Sun heated the water. Now that the tradewinds are again increasing, the surface currents are increasing & the cool upwelling is increasing & sea water temperatures are dropping even though the Sun is still shining on it.

According to:http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
The average to June 19 is 0.343 with the June 19 value even lower at 0.31. This is a drop of about 0.13 from the May average of 0.471. Of course this does not mean that all data sets will drop by 0.13 in June and June is not over yet. But all indications are that June will show a further large drop over May.

” the natural process that creates the phenomenon results in due to the Pacific ocean near the Equator not being able to dissipate heat to space as effectively as it usually does.”
Since there are more oceans in the southern hemisphere that hemisphere acquires more energy from the sun penetrating the water.
That causes an energy imbalance between the oceans of the two hemispheres and El Nino events represent a periodic discharge of the ‘excess’ heat in the southern oceans into both the atmosphere and the northern oceans. La Nina is then a recharge process during which the imbalance builds up once more.

RWTurner
Do I really need a link to support the assertions that:
i) There are more ocean surfaces in the southern hemisphere
ii) That the larger surface area acquires more energy from the sun than the smaller area
What do you think then must happen?

Do you not think that there would be a relationship between the thermal imbalance between the hemispheres and the rate of vertical overturning?
There will be a complex interaction between the level of cloudiness forced by solar activity, the surface winds forced by surface temperature and pressure differentials and the consequent rate of vertical overturning.
Faster overturning would subduct more solar energy to depth in the La Nina recharge stage (more of the incoming solar radiation is denied to the climate system) and slower overturning would subduct less solar energy to depth in the El Nino stage (less of the incoming solar radiation is denied to the climate system)
More clouds at a time of less active sun would mean less energy into the oceans during the La Nina recharge stage and thus a weaker El Nino in the subsequent discharge stage.thus altering the net balance between El Nino and La Nina.

Okay, but “do you not think” doesn’t cut it.
“El Nino events represent a periodic discharge of the ‘excess’ heat in the southern oceans into both the atmosphere and the northern oceans” is conjecture that I asked for links to support it.
I would actually think that the heat going into the low latitudes of the southern hemisphere is released into higher southern latitudes.http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/62/112362-004-5788B8E2.gif

Fair point but you need to look at the thermohaline circulation which does cross the equator at various points:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation#/media/File:Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png
Eventually, heat from El Ninos circulates to the poles in both hemispheres. It seems to take about 10 years to reach the Arctic Ocean hence the record 2007 melt about 10 years after the 1997/8 El Nino.
In the atmosphere the ITCZ is a bit of a barrier at the surface and within the troposphere but higher up in the stratosphere there is another flow between hemispheres via the Brewer Dobson Circulation.

Even more relevant are the equatorial undercurrent, aka the Cromwell Current. Perhaps it is interactions between all of these moving parts that explains the underlying causes of ENSO variability and perhaps thermal heating discrepancies between the hemispheres is an important part of it but I don’t know of any paper that has nailed the underlying cause with certainty.
I wasn’t trying to troll you, I was actually hoping you’d show me a paper that did convincingly show that causal relationship. Here is a paper that may support your claim, as it concludes that 2/3 of the water in the equatorial undercurrent comes from the southern hemisphere.http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JPO2825.1

RW
Thanks for your constructive comments. Anything that helps me to focus my mind on the aspects that others find difficult to accept is useful.
As far as I know I am the only person who has suggested that ENSO is a consequence of an unbalanced solar input to the oceans between the two hemispheres so please forgive me for not pointing to any other source of that suggestion.
All I can say is that I have been an obsessive observer of weather and climate for some 60 years (having joined the Royal Meteorological Society as a student member in 1968 and becoming a Fellow – now equivalent to an Associate Fellow- in 1971) and it does appear that I have formed certain ideas that may not conform with the so called ‘consensus’ but yet might be the actual truth of the matter.

Well they sure are trying hard to give the impression that it is going to be the “hottest evah” this year. The hype fn the heat wave in the desert SW US is getting ridiculous with claims of new “record temperatures” that aren’t actually records all over the weather and news outlets. Tony Heller has been keeping track of some of the lies:http://realclimatescience.com/2016/06/southwest-heatwave-scam-update/
Seems to me that globally it will take a great deal of manipulation to claim 2016 as the “hottest evah” if the extreme cold now being experienced in many areas of the southern hemisphere continues. A new record for Vostok and even some places in Brazil have set records for cold.

So if the past is any indication, we should expect the trough in global temperatures to be sometime spring or early summer 2017.
This time the cooling is clearly even more rapid than in 1998, so it will be interesting to see how long this rate of cooling lasts.
I’m betting on this being the strongest La Nina since the 70s and a clear PDO flip back to negative. Basically I think that the trend of La Ninas increasing in intensity since the mid 2000s will continue.http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif

The cooling is taking place in line with the decline in sunspot activity and winter in the northern hemisphere where all these dodgy urban encroached thermometers are. The El Niño conveniently occurred and peaked several months, maybe a year after the suns poles reversed and struck earths oceans… The northern hemisphere is on the verge of a gradual cooling, if you remove all the statistical “trickery” going on that is biased to some warming, we’re left with a major problem of a continued cooling…

That’s correct, I also noticed ~2 weeks ago all regions warmed again, and the latest weekly reading was the same or slightly warmer again. So the rapid SST drop has certainly ended for now. Just interested to see at what level the atmospheric temperatures settle back to – pre El Nino, or a step up?

Global temps usually lag the Nino3.4 index by 3 months. So, look for falling temps for another 3 months. Although, probably not as fast as the last 3 months. By that time we should have a good idea if a La Nina is on the way.

None of the Nino indexes are currently below 0 in anomaly. As Mr GrimNasty said, about 2 weeks ago there was an uptick and the only one that had been below 0 (Nino 2) has also risen above that level.http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml

Great analysis Anthony. The daily CFSR global temperature anomaly estimates for mid-June are now back to where they were for 2014 and the first half of 2015, before the El Niño hit. There also were some unusually high Arctic temperature anomalies in the winter that helped to spike the global averages even higher than the El Niño alone. It does not appear they are directly related, because past El Niños have not had similar high temperature spikes in the Arctic. The Arctic temperatures are almost back to “normal”, while Antarctic temperatures have plummeted well below “normal” in mid-June and continue to show an overall downward trend for the satellite era, since 1979, despite CO2 reaching over 400 ppb there.

I do much agree with you Mr Watts. I would suggest to work with the PDO, which is now on its cold phase, at least till 2025-2030. Then will come the warm phase, in which El Niño is more frequent and intense. 82-83 and 97-98 El Niño were during a warm phase of PDO; and the PDO is associated to sun spot #.

There might not be a warm phase after 2030, if a Maunder level grand minimum enters onto the scene. Maybe that is what a Maunder level grand minimum is all about, and why it reaches lower depths as the normal pattern of warm to cool and back again is disrupted due to solar events.

True, temperatures are falling quite fast, and still higher than before but 1- the paucity of stations at high latitudes is related to the relatively low population density, plus the small area covered. The earth is a sphere..

I don’t recall ever seeing the cool water wavy pattern at the equator in the Pacific as shown in the 2nd image on the Nina. Why would that happen? Upwelling cold water eddy’s?
Just sayin, has anyone viewed that pattern before?

It’s ocean surface currents giving variation to the interaction of the upwelling cool kelvin wave. Looking back through the of images, it first showed up as a warm/less warm pattern on 4/18, that has changed in variation as the cooler water rose.
See the archive athttp://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/

“Just sayin, has anyone viewed that pattern before?”
It’s a vortex street. A jet of liquid is travelling west, and where there is a shear velocity, vortices form. It happens whether hot or cold. You can see it in motion here. There is actually an alternating hot/cold pattern.

Where is the heat going? Has anyone done calculations on how much energy is being removed and how this compares to known cooling mechanisms? The charts on Ocean temperature show the cooling starting several hundred meters deep and working to the surface; so it is not likely that the energy is going into the deep Ocean.

John, the mechanism I like the most for this is the pattern of warm, moisture-laden air proceeding globally out from the equator toward the higher latitudes. The MIMIC-TPW program has a visualization based on satelite total precipitable water, here…http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mimic-tpw/global2/main.html
Those plumes of moisture interact with the mid-latitude winds, and wind up as rain.

El Nino was widely predicted to cause an increase in global temperatures two or three years ago (if memory serves, please correct me if I am wrong). La Nina, at the same time, was predicted to lower global temperatures also. On top of that though we have a Sun with zero, to very few sunspots which will also reduce global temperatures. If the warmists keep banging on about CO2 causing ever increasing warming, they will be in for a shock. unless of course they “adjust” historical temperatures.

If the molten core of the Earth, the specific movements of which we know very little about, changes its slosh pattern, the Van Allen Belt that protects us from radiation may grow stronger or weaker, which would certainly effect climate. How can we presume to predict the future of the egg by only examining the surface of the egg?

All this el Nino stuff depends very much on our sun. During the Little Ice Age and low sunspot activity, there was far fewer el Ninos.

I’ve wondered about this.
I think a few of these processes are powered by the accumulated heat (energy) and rotational energy, with the moon as an impeller. These effects all combine into the various cycles: el nino’s, the decadal oceans cycles, and the arctic melting are all powered by them.
As all of the warm water accumulates it alters wind patterns, which alters surface temps, which alters ocean currents. Then all of that warm water vapor that is made is recorded by surface stations as it cools going poleward. This then alters the ratio of tropical air to polar air with all of the cold polar air over all those land based thermometers that are infilled and homogenized.

i agree with the description of the moon as an impeller , but i think the variations in location of maximum lunar gravitational effects over decadal and longer timescales have the greatest effect on the distribution of heat through the ocean currents.

I interpret the upper chart differently. I see a big section of -4 C anomaly water appear, and move progressively upward and eastward. The question I have will be whether that motion will continue, and how the trend will develop.

One doesn’t want to measure the temperature difference as far out as 10S and 10N because at 8S and 8N, the ocean currents now switch and go in the opposite direction.
The world’s ocean are funny in that about every 8 degrees or so, the ocean currents switch directions. It is hard to see this in the typical ocean current maps one sees but this seems to be a fundamental characteristic of the oceans. The currents also change with depth so that the top 100 metres goes in one direction and the next 100 metres often travels the other way as a counter-current.
The best measure of where the ENSO is going to go is the equatorial upper ocean ocean temperature anomaly down to 300 metres but only between 5S and 5N and from 180W to 100W. Recorded here.http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt
Charted here.http://s33.postimg.org/a7mfl6gcv/EUOTA_vs_Nino_3_4_p_May16.png
If one charted this at 8N, rather than 5S to 5N, one would find almost a negative correlation.

Me thinks an El Nino effect is most probably nothing more than a “progressively upward motion” of a sub-surface “warm water” current that begins in the eastern Pacific with said “progressively upward motion”, …. NOT the warm water itself, …. moving eastward into the western Pacific. Like “throwing-a-loop” in a rope where the “loop” travels the length of the rope without the rope moving laterally.
Maybe more monitoring of deep ocean “warm” currents to predict when the next El Nino will occur and the possible source of said “warm” currents, Aka: the source might be the THC or a randomly occurring branch of said. ???

One can think of it as a continuous loop.
Ocean surface at the equator moves westward blown and dragged along by the trade winds.
Surface water piles up against Indonesia and is forced downward .
Water forced downward has to go somewhere (and there is constantly more water piling up all the time so it has to move) and it flows back to the east to resurface again at the Galapagos Islands.
The continuous loop causes temperature differentials so sometimes, warm water is piling up against Indonesia which then enters the undercurrent back to the East. 1 year later, it surfaces at the Galapagos Islands and the warm water becomes an El Nino. (It influences the trade winds and the cloud formations so that it reinforces itself to become even warmer and more El Nino-like).
Opposite in a La Nina. Cold water is piling up against Indonesia and it enters the under-current, surfaces at the Galapagos 1 year later etc.http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/tropics/images/neutral.jpg

One can think of it as a continuous loop.
Ocean surface at the equator moves westward blown and dragged along by the trade winds.

Bill, your “continuous loop” scenario sound really great …… but ……. but ……. it is my understanding that with El Nino conditions the warm surface water ….. (depicted as red on the following graphic excerpted from the article) ……. spreads from the western Pacific Ocean towards the east in the direction of South America, To wit:https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/enso-changed-june2016.png
Thus, the warm surface water of an El Nino either spreads or appears to spread from the equatorial western Pacific toward the equatorial eastern Pacific and/or South America ….. which is directly contrary to your stated east to west movement of the equatorial surface waters.
Therefore, it is my learned opinion that the movement of an El Nino warm water “Blob” is not accurately defined/explained.

Samuel C. Cogar,
It just appears to move eastward in an El Nino. Its an illusion. The warmth or more accurately, the anomaly above the normal sea surface temperature in the area, moves east, Just the anomaly, not the water itself. The ocean at the equator is actually colder than the ocean SST at 5N and 5S for example.
The surface is still (mostly) moving to the west, but the temperature anomaly appears to build eastward. There are some small areas which do flow back east, a few hundred km swath, but generally the water is still moving westward, although slower than it normally does because the trade winds are suppressed.
Open the link called “Last 12 months (gif)” in the SST section on this page which is what the equatorial pacific surface has actually done over the last year and what the temperature actually was, covering the second biggest El Nino in history. The surface is still moving west.http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/equpac.html

What’s clear, is that no matter what dataset you look at, global temperatures are headed down, and fast.

Anthony, this reveals the speed at which the atm can change temps, even with all of the co2 effect continuously baked in. We see this every night when the sun goes down.
The atm first cools radiatively, until the rel humidity goes up and all the water vapor has to condense, cooling rates go from 4F – 5F degrees per hour, down to 1F or 2F.
But the other part of this is asphalt and concrete can stay warm all night. And can be 20F-30F warmer than air temps if not more.
All of this regulates air temps far more strongly than co2 does, and this is another example of it’s insignificance.

A question for the crowd
Suppose for a moment that the climate temperatures over the next 5 years cooled so much that even the government goons could not hide the decline in average temperature. Suppose further that sites like this one kept telling the public about the decline. Heck, suppose some politicians even mentioned the decline.
Question: what would be the alarmists excuse for this decline?

Well, it might go something like this, “We reached the tipping point we warned you about. It was so catastrophic that it tipped us over backwards.” See they’ve still got their crisis and their phony baloney jobs. And we’ll have to subsidize a Warmth For The Poor program with our taxes.

CAGW will do as they always do if it starts to get colder, ignore it. What they will do is jump on some weather event as proof. Trying to pin CAGW down on something specific has been likened to nailing jello to the wall. Pause? what pause?

“Question: what would be the alarmists excuse for this decline?”
Answer: George Clooney stopped donations, hasn’t made an alarming movie and Leo forgot to plug in his electric car before Elon M. took his Our cash to Venezuela.

This rapid rise and fall of measured temperature around the globe is telling us something. What is it? If it is driven by solar input or tectonics our modern instruments would quickly record a correlation.
I struggle with the concept of the ocean storing then burping heat to any significant degree. My understanding is that the only factor that can cause an inverted temperature column in the ocean relates to salinity. Heat rises. How can it be trapped at depth? Temperature cells can be unevenly distributed and transported laterally, as is well documented along the equator, but this cannot (IMO) explain the way terrestrial temperatures respond so quickly.
If equatorial water is restricted in cooling through a change in currents that normally transfer the heat to higher latitudes this is only a change in heat distribution, not net output. Why should this suddenly heat the globe?
I am beginning to agree with others here that while wind and ocean currents may be a trigger, the main control over this rapid rise and fall is insulation (cloud). What else can respond and influence so rapidly?

If equatorial water is restricted in cooling through a change in currents that normally transfer the heat to higher latitudes this is only a change in heat distribution, not net output. Why should this suddenly heat the globe?

I have two hypotheses
As you mention clouds, and some such self reinforcing weather pattern, winds, jet stream warm blob kind of thing. A very general answer because beyond this, it’s all I have.
Or
Is some combination of heat redistribution that changes the proportion of tropical to polar air masses over the continents, that is magnified by the processing.
There’s another point, the derivative of daily max temp when averaged by year, is a few thousands of a degree dithering around 0.0F.
But, the derivative of min temp has big swings, but at different places at different times, which fits a change in tropical water vapor. We see a 10 to 20F swing in max temps because of this. But GATs average all of this away, and you don’t see it anymore. I think there has been an increase in temps, but it’s just the remainder of the increase that the big swings on min temp doesn’t explain.

am beginning to agree with others here that while wind and ocean currents may be a trigger, the main control over this rapid rise and fall is insulation (cloud). What else can respond and influence so rapidly?

Here is something I wrote back towards the end of last year. I was going to expand on it further, but some life issues distracted me shortly after I fleshed out the thought fully. I hope to get back to this in the near future and take a second more complete look at the concept. Also, I noted a discrepancy in the graph posted by D Archibald after I had completed my thoughts. That is partly why I will need to start from the beginning with a more detailed study of the correlation, if any, between hemispheric sunspot number dominance correlating with changes in the ENSO regions…https://goldminor.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/my-analysis-of-the-sunoceanenso-connection/
Also to see the rough correlation which first caught my attention look at Silso monthly hemispheric graph in relation to global temps over the past 70 years. When I look at the different temp graphs I have concluded that the recent shift points of climate run from the years 1946/47 to 1976/77, slight cooling phase; and the warming from 1976/77 to 2006/07, warming phase. ..http://sidc.oma.be/silso/monthlyhemisphericplot
Notice that it can readily be seen that the northern hemisphere of the Sun was dominant from at least 1950 to 1976/77. Afterwards the southern hemisphere turns dominant after1977 and stays that way through 2007. Now look at the MEI graph and note that it can be seen that ENSO negative conditions are dominant from 1950 to 1977; and positive ENSO conditions are dominant from 1977 to 2007. The picture that forms for me is that the cooling trend correlates with northern hemisphere sunspots dominant, while the warming trend correlates with southern sunspots dominant. Thus I have come to believe that the cooling of the ENSO region which is now steadily progressing is once again being forced by the shift of sunspot dominance back to the northern hemisphere of the Sun. That process first started last December, and the effects are now becoming apparent. There is a lag in the system which makes sense to me. That much above average heat can not disappear overnight so to speak. Although it also makes sense to me that with the right conditions this cooling process can speed up, if the northern hemisphere stays fully dominant as it mainly has done, except for the slight shift of the last 3 weeks where hemispheric conditions shifted briefly and slightly in favor of warming. To my way of perceiving events that is why the cooling abated for the last several weeks. Lastly, I see nature as having entered the beginning of a cooling trend from 2006/07, and that should hold for approximately 30+ years. There is more to this. I hope to add to this in the near future.

Given the discussion in this thread, there does not appear to be any form of statistical analysis that could account for all the variables as well as the non-linear progression of individual data sets. Therefore, modeling long term climate is impossible.
Comments?

Also of note, look at the changes in the western side of the Indian Ocean, the lower eastern side of So America, and the Middle of the Gulf Stream off of No America. For some reason currents moving through Drakes Passage went cold around early November of last year. These regions of the oceans will also make a difference as this year progresses. It is not just the ENSO regions which have undergone significant change.
Look at what WeatherZone shows for the Indian Ocean. A large part of the Indian Ocean has cooled quite a bit as compared to January of this year. …http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta

From Anthony’s article at the top, please refer to the second map, showing SST anomaly temperatures globally. Then refer to the tropical eastern Pacific where the red arrow points to the green squiggle.
There is some speculation about what might cause this particular, interesting pattern – assuming it is proper data and not an artefact of gridding/smoothing or the like.
Since patterns like this can sometimes help explain mechanisms, can readers venture ideas about that serpentine shape?
Geoff

The northern hemisphere land masses are heating up now because of increased solar radiation but what goes up must come down and they will cool down soon because of decreasing solar radiation, If the cooling down is greater than it heating now we should not simply attribute this to a la nina but to reduced solar activity.

The coolest calendar year since the start of the 21st century was 2008, according to UAH lower troposphere temperature data. 2008 was -0.10C cooler than the 1981-2010 annual average in that data set.
Does anyone expect 2017 to be cooler than 2008 in the UAH data?

After the 1997/98 El Nino it took around 18 months for temps to drop to a low point, which coincidentally matched the 2008 low. Using that as a template of what might be expected then I would say that potentially temps could match or exceed the 2008 low point by the end of 2017. If temps continue to fall at the current rate, then it may not take 18 months to reach UAH 2008 levels.

Isabelle, that theory is not a new one. And has been debunked repeatedly. Just for starters, research the author. Then research the general topic of planetary influence on solar behavior. Hooking yourself to this theory because you find it fascinating is not a standard of good research critique.

Isabelle-
“temperatures are falling down after this new theory ”
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that because of this “new” (not) theory, temperatures are falling? Because that makes no sense. Or that temperatures are falling, which is predicted by this theory? (along with many others)
Solar activity, and solar winds has been studied for decades, and Laplace figured out spherical harmonics back in the late 1700’s. So you’ll have to tell us what it is about this paper that you find to be”new” and “unprecedented research”.

You have a nice correlation there with plausible cause suggestion. What makes you think your graphed correlation and plausible cause suggestion will suddenly stop and instead be taken over by another cause?

Thank you Pamela,
Your question:
“What makes you think your graphed correlation and plausible cause suggestion will suddenly stop and instead be taken over by another cause?”
My answer, in very general terms (I‘ve been awake for about 20 hours so this could be rough):
First, an aside:
Note that the 1982-83 El Nino had little impact on global temperature (as UAHLT). Bill Illis suggested that the reason was: “El Chichon volcanic eruptions. Early April 1982, -0.4C cooling impact lasting for 3 years with a diminishing effect over time of course.”
Next, regarding your question:
The first phase of cooling is short-term rapid cooling for about 6 months, the typical steep global temperature decline from a major El Nino warm event, as the warmth shed during the El Nino from the ocean into the atmosphere is again shed from the atmosphere (presumably) into space.
Next:
This rapid post-El Nino cooling can be seen to moderate after about 6 months in the past major El Nino event, typically cooling more gradually for several more months. There may or may not be a significant La Nina cooling – I have not analysed this. Then it is anyone’s guess where global temperatures will go – will they settle at a slightly higher plateau like 1997-98, get warmer or get cooler?
I suggest that solar intensity governs in this next time frame, and a quiet Sun, especially two consecutive quiet solar cycles like SC24 and (probably also) SC25, will lead to significant multi-decadal global cooling, similar to the post-WW2 global cooling period from about 1940 to 1975, or (probably) cooler.
I think we will cross into global cooling territory (defined as below +0.2C UAH LT global temperature anomaly) sometime in 2017 (but the data is messy, so even after another decade this timing may be debatable). Thereafter, with the usual ups and downs, Earth will continue to get cooler, as described above.
During this multi-decadal global cooling period, I expect atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase, but at a lower rate than in previous decades. We may get the occasional 12-month period where atmospheric CO2 actually declines, as occurred during the aforementioned post-WW2 global cooling period.
Finally , I suggest that the catastrophic humanmade global warming (CAGW) hypothesis was effectively disproved during the post-WW2 global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1975, and will be similarly disproved again during the next global cooling period.
At some point in time, even the most fervent adherents to global warming religious mania will either convert to climate reality, of die of exposure on their Alaskan beaches.
As usual, I hope to be wrong about imminent global cooling – warm is good, cold is bad – it IS (almost) that simple.
Regards to all, Allan

Pamela – some references:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/28/greens-blame-donald-trump-for-crumbling-paris-climate-accord/comment-page-1/#comment-2225581
I have not had the time to expand on my (our) prediction of imminent global cooling. I wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
This prediction was based on the work of Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson at Carleton University,
We now say global cooling will start by 2017, but I suggest that 2020-2030 is close enough, especially since we wrote this in 2002.

Finally Pamela, here is why this all matters.
I suggest that the extremely high Excess Winter Mortality Rate in the UK and several other countries is a symptom of this growing problem.
An Open Letter to Baroness Verma (2013)https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1462890
“All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”.
– Baroness Verma
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.
The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.
I suggest with confidence that 10.5C is substantially warmer as a yearly average than 8.5C, and the latter may not provide a “lovely year for Chrysanths”.
I further suggest with confidence that individual years averaging 7.8C or even 6.8C are even colder, and the Chrysanths will suffer.
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
Turning and tuning in the widening gyre,
the falcon cannot hear the falconer…
– Yeats
________________________
MY CONCLUSIONS:
EVIDENCE SUGGESTING TEMPERATURE DRIVES ATMOSPHERIC CO2 MORE THAN CO2 DRIVES TEMPERATURE
September 4, 2015
By Allan MacRaehttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary

Before everyone says it I will say it of course this initial cooling is due to the ending of the strong El NINO.
Secondly in the future if cooling proceeds and happens to be in conjunction with increased volcanic activity that would be one of my solar /climate connections I have presented in the past . I just know solar deniers will say it is the volcanic activity independent of solar activity if that should occur.
Thirdly finally it looks like many of the solar criteria I have called for that are needed to impact the climate are starting to be approached from solar flux readings below 90 to EUV light below 100 units to cosmic ray counts approaching 6500 units.
Solar wind still to high along with the AP index for now but these value should come down going forward.
Finally we will have to see how the cooling evolves over the next few years in that if an increase in global cloud coverae, a decrease in global sea surface temperatures, a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern , and an increase in volcanic activity come about as the cooling proceeds this will lend more credence to the solar /climate connection.
Lastly if prolonged minimum conditions exist La Nina should rule ENSO although when the sun is in a regular sunspot cycle El Nino tends to occur near solar minimums, not at solar maximums.
Here are the specifics on solar criteria needed to impact the climate to a colder condition in my opinion. These conditions were likely present during the Maunder and Dalton minimums.
Solar Flux – sub 90 sustained.
Cosmic Ray Counts – in excess of 6500 units sustained.
Solar Irradiance -ff by .15% sustained
AP index – or lower sustained via a weak solar wind.
EUV light – 100 units or less.
Solar Wind – 350 km/sec or lower sustained.
How cold I can not be specific because I believe there are climatic thresholds that could be breached if solar conditions are weak enough and long enough in duration which would drive natural climatic drivers to such extremes that climatic thresholds could come about.
These natural climatic drivers being the following:
1. Global cloudiness via galactic cosmic rays tied into the solar wind strength.
2. Atmospheric circulation patters via ozone changes tied into changes in EUV light.
3. Sea surface temperatures via changes in UV light.
4. Volcanic Activity via changes in muons which are tied into galactic cosmic ray intensities.
5. ENSO -tied into overall solar conditions. La Nina I think might occur if a prolonged minimum solar condition came about.
6. Increase in sea ice and global snow cover due to atmospheric changes and lower global temperatures from all of the above.
ALBEDO – this would change if global cloudiness increased along with ice and snow cover which if it only increased by a mere 1% would impact the temperatures of the earth.
Weakening Earth Magnetic Field would compound solar effects and the field is weakening at a fairly rapid clip.
That is my take on it.
I have just been taking a break along with moving from Ct. from Mi. over the past 6 months or so and waiting for the solar maximum to end which has finally now occurred. Hence my absence.

If there ever was a single damning graphical representation of the doomsayers and panic merchants with CAGW and the Club of Rome mentality it has to be that World’s Population by Latitude one. Have a guess where the world’s population will spread as the globe continues its warm cycle folks? Demography101 warmies.

Before it is said I will say it of course this initial cooling is due to the ending of El Nino.
Secondly if Volcanic Activity should pick up as the cooling proceeds that is one of my solar/climate connections and is NOT independent of the solar tie in.
Thirdly now many of my solar low avg. value parameters are starting to be reached. EUV LIGHT falling below 100 units of late, Cosmic Ray Counts approaching 6500 units, Solar Flux falling below 90.
Solar Wind/ AP INDEX still high but they should fall if this solar minimum proceeds.
Here are the specifics on solar criteria needed to impact the climate to a colder condition in my opinion. These conditions were likely present during the Maunder and Dalton minimums.
Solar Flux – sub 90 sustained.
Cosmic Ray Counts – in excess of 6500 units sustained.
Solar Irradiance -off by .15% sustained
AP index – 5 or lower sustained via a weak solar wind.
EUV light – 100 units or less.
Solar Wind – 350 km/sec or lower sustained.
How cold I can not be specific because I believe there are climatic thresholds that could be breached if solar conditions are weak enough and long enough in duration which would drive natural climatic drivers to such extremes that climatic thresholds could come about.
These natural climatic drivers being the following:
1. Global cloudiness via galactic cosmic rays tied into the solar wind strength.
2. Atmospheric circulation patters via ozone changes tied into changes in EUV light.
3. Sea surface temperatures via changes in UV light.
4. Volcanic Activity via changes in muons which are tied into galactic cosmic ray intensities.
5. ENSO -tied into overall solar conditions. La Nina I think might occur if a prolonged minimum solar condition came about.
6. Increase in sea ice and global snow cover due to atmospheric changes and lower global temperatures from all of the above.
ALBEDO – this would change if global cloudiness increased along with ice and snow cover which if it only increased by a mere 1% would impact the temperatures of the earth.
Weakening Earth Magnetic Field would compound solar effects and the field is weakening at a fairly rapid clip.

I see that some arm-chair climate conjecturers have shown up again whose proposals are not much better than throwing everything on the wall in hopes some of it will stick. This is poor methodology in place of narrowed reasoned scientific proposal under-girded by well-explained plausible mechanism and proper literature review (IE not cherry picked literature review). These same commenters are loath to find fault with their own stew, yet it is their responsibility to do so lest we have group-think followers in love with pseudo-scientific vaporous conjecture.
I have been through the fire of research proposal, lab work, and publication. I will suggest exactly what I was told to do. Narrow your topic and explain just one thing in your bag of parameters that is both plausible and under-girded by both supported and non-supported literature review. Otherwise, your oft repeated litany of “stuff” is just blah blah blah and yada yada yada.

How can she know if she likes it or not if she doesn’t read it? Is that like Nancy Pelosi saying you have to “pass the bill so you can find out what is in the bill”?
Pam read it, didn’t like it, and said so. You read her comment, didn’t like it, and responded. It’s called communication.

I advise you to ignore Ms. Gray’s character attacks and continue posting comments here, even if they don’t meet her “standards”.
My climate blog didn’t meet her standards either (which is proof she knows little about climate history), and she character attacked me too.
But she didn’t scare me. When a leftist character attacks me viciously about my climate blog (blog at link below), as Ms. Gray did, I know I’m on the right track !http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
I imagine Ms Gray’s favorite activity, beyond criticizing people here,
is screaming at school children who walk across her lawn?
I imagine she might be a retired school teacher,
who misses the ‘good old days’ when she was frequently
slamming little boys’ on their knuckles with a ruler,
after they got a question wrong in her class.
You have provided some interesting ideas in your posts worth further examination.
But if ideas presented in these comments do not have a link to a white paper worthy of a PhD., Ms. Gray may respond with a character attack, and she did, calling you an: “arm-chair climate conjecturer” and describing your list as: “blah blah blah and yada yada yada”.
Ms. Gray. like most leftists, knows only three ways to “debate”:
(1) Character Attacks (no debate at all),
(2) Misleading, and
(3) Lying
Those three tactics are usually the ONLY way to “win” a debate when you take the weak leftist position.
How could one possibly win a debate in favor of socialism over free markets, or claiming a global warming catastrophe is coming (that never comes!), or demanding a $15 minimum wage to help unskilled workers, etc., any other way?
One can’t support these leftist positions with facts, data and logic !
So leftists, whether they are arguing for a coming climate catastrophe, or for a $15 minimum wage, almost always resort to their three “weapons”: Character attacks, misleading and lying.
In summary, don’t let a character attack from Ms. Gray inhibit or shut down your comments here.

Salvatore-
You said the how/why the cooling has occurred was-“this initial cooling is due to the ending of the strong El NINO.” Then went on with the blah blah blah about numerous other things. I think Pam is trying to be helpful to you.

WHAT I WILL BE WATCHING AS /IF THE COOLING PROEEDS GOING FORWARD FOR CL UES.
Yes this initial cooling is related to El Nino ending but as the cooling evolves this might give us clues if something other then the El Nino’s end is contributing to the cooling. I am talking solar.
If these solar related items respond in the following manner to prolonged solar minimum conditions if the cooling progresses the case for a solar climate connection is going to be stronger.
SOLAR RELATED ITEMS RESPONSES:
1. Global cloud coverage increase linked to Galactic Cosmic Rays.
2. A more Meridional Atmospheric Circulation linked to changes in EUV light which effects Ozone distributions in the atmosphere.
3. An increase in Volcanic Activity linked to Muons a by product of Galactic Cosmic Rays
4. Surface /Ocean Heat Content drop off linked to a decrease in UV light just below the wavelengths of Visible light.
5. The cooling itself, how does it CONTRAST in degree of intensity to past cooling events when El Nino conditions ended and La Nina conditions commenced when the sun was in an active state such as was the case last century.
As of now minimum solar conditions are getting close to the solar criteria I have called for which would impact the climate.
For example EUV light has recently fallen below 100 units and the Cosmic Ray count is close to 6500 units, while Solar Flux readings have fallen to less then 90.
Solar Wind /AP INDEX – still elevated but they should subside to the criteria I have called for going forward , which is AP index 5 or less and Solar Wind Speeds of 350 km/sec. or less.

Narrow your topic. Take your first proposed parameter and tell us why it is first (just a random place or does it have to be first?) as well as what is currently known about clouds and cosmic rays. Provide references that both argue for and argue against the connection. Otherwise it is just the first blah and yada of your treatise.

Many people have debated your treatise. Vigorously and with supported research review. I would assume you have taken this feedback into account thus informing your treatise accordingly. I also assume you have done your due diligence and have an improved ready paragraph or two with literature review regarding your first cause and effect in your chain of events. Post it. Unless my assumptions are not true.

A single source citation weakly peer reviewed if at all, does not rise to the level needed to put forth your thesis as a serious contender, especially one based on old reconstructions of solar output. Try again.

Pam a contender in the eyes of who?
Pam it has been explained to you in detail if you choose not to accept what has been said to you fine, move on.
As for my part I will continue to push my solar/climate connection theory and people like yourself who do not choose to embrace it make it that much more worth while.
We will see who is correct going forward I plan to be correct.

Regan Power:
“All interactions in nature are by the mutual consent of all parties involved. All interactions in nature are by the mutual consent of all parties involved….”
Everybody, lets hear it now: ” The only consent in the universe is possible from certain living beings.” The concept of ‘consent’ is a concept that presupposes the concept of consciousness. Matter has properties by which interactions can take place, but almost all matter does not have the property of giving consent.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy